MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014751763 · doi:10.1017/jrc.2020.2

The difference model of disability: A change in direction for vocational rehabilitation practice

2020· article· en· W3014751763 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathon S. Breen, Susan Forwell

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlameConceptualizationVocational educationAffect (linguistics)PsychologyPremiseRehabilitationVocational rehabilitationWorkforceApplied psychologyProcess (computing)Medical educationSocial psychologyMedicineComputer sciencePedagogyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Vocational rehabilitation provides guidance and support to individuals with disabilities entering the workforce. Employment plans include considerations of goals, the job market, and pre-existing or trainable skills on the part of job seekers. This process also includes an understanding of the social forces that affect employment goals. Current models of disability include the medical, social, and embodiment models. Each is cognitively based and assumes an element of responsibility or blame, that is, respectively, focused on the individual with a disability, the community, or a combination of these two factors. The difference model of disability offers an alternative understanding of disability by providing an affect-based framework that eliminates the premise of blame. This conceptualization of disability provides a new approach to vocational rehabilitation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.029
Scholarly communication0.0060.012
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Rehabilitation CounsellingSame topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207